Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 13

Public Business. - Local Government (Rates on Agricultural Land) Bill, 1931—Committee Stage.

The Dáil went into Committee on the Bill.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(2) The additional supplementary grant shall be payable to the councils of the several counties (other than county boroughs) and shall be apportioned amongst such councils as follows, that is to say:
(a) as to one moiety of the said grant, in proportion to the respective populations of the several counties according to the census taken in the year 1926, and
(b) as to the other moiety of the said grant, in the same proportions as the portion of the agricultural grant payable to the councils of counties (other than county boroughs) is apportionable amongst such councils.

On amendment 1 to Section 2, and also on the other amendments there is an important point of order which, although I have not had an opportunity of discussing with you, I think is too important to allow to go by default. If we take the point of order on amendment 1, I want to say this amendment would create a completely new class of beneficiary under the Act. The Act proposes that the supplementary grant shall be applicable in like manner as the supplementary grant in the Act of 1925. The Act of 1925 arranges that the money therein provided shall be distributed in like manner as is arranged under Section 51 of the Act of 1898. When the agricultural grant was originally provided, it was expressly provided that the grant should extend to agricultural land within the meaning of the Valuation Act, but should not extend to land which was part of a railway or canal or to an hereditament situated within the boundary of a borough or of any town which was an urban sanitary district. The amendment proposes in a Bill which provides money to be distributed in like manner as the Act of 1925 that land that would be expressly excluded under the 1898 Act shall be included. That is as far as the first amendment to Section 2 is concerned.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, that is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Bill as it is before us at present. Under the 1898 Act, where land was outside an urban district or a county borough at the time of the passing of the 1898 Act and because of that reason became entitled to benefit from the agricultural grant, where such land passed into an urban district or county borough subsequent to 1898 the benefit of the agricultural grant passed to the urban district in respect of the land that came into the urban district and to the county borough council in respect of land which came into the county borough council. I would point out that this Act provides in respect of land which has passed into the county borough area prior to the passing of this Act that no part of this money shall pass in respect of land that has previously passed into that area.

That concluding point is not in Section 2.

No, it is on the second amendment.

I submit that the Minister's point of order is on the merits of the amendment itself, rather than whether the amendment comes within the scope of the Bill. I contend that the matter contained in the amendment comes within the scope of the Bill, because we are dealing with an Act to make provision for the application of moneys which may be provided by the Oireachtas for the additional relief of rates on agricultural land. I contend therefore that it is quite in order.

In the amendment in Deputy Goulding's name and mine, land within the county borough other than agricultural land is excluded. The amendment seeks to have the grant given under this Bill to any land within the boundary of a county borough, occupied and used as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry, and so forth, and the Bill is for the relief of agricultural land. The amendment simply seeks to extend the benefits under the Bill to people who have unfortunately been excluded up to the present. I do not want to argue the thing now unless it is to be ruled out of order.

The two amendments seem to be similar. The form in which Deputy Hennessy's amendment appears on the Order Paper now is somewhat different from the form in which it was originally handed in. The two amendments seem to aim at including in the Bill agricultural land not included in the Bill. Apart from the merits of the amendment, with which I have no concern, the point of order would appear to be this, that the Bill contemplates additional relief of rates on agricultural land where the occupier of the land pays rates to a county council, and Deputy Hennessy's amendment introduces an occupier who pays rates to an urban council.

Amendment 2, in the name of Deputy Goulding and Deputy Aiken introduces land where the occupier pays rates to a county borough.

It seems to me that it would be too narrow a definition of the scope of the Bill to maintain that the amendments are outside it. The Bill is a Bill to provide for the relief of rates on agricultural land. The amendments seek to bring in certain types of agricultural land and in the absence of a definition of agricultural land, which would rule out the amendments, it seems to me that the amendments are in order and may be argued.

I move amendment No. 1:

Section 2. In sub-section (2), line 29, after the word "boroughs" to insert the words "and shall also be payable by the councils of such counties to the councils of urban areas (other than county boroughs) in respect of agricultural land within such urban areas which are excluded from the application of such grant by sub-section (4) of Section 48 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 and that sub-section shall be construed accordingly.

Section 48, sub-section (4) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 provides:

The provisions of this Act with respect to agricultural land shall extend to every hereditament entered as land in the valuation list within the meaning of the Valuation Acts which is not part of a railway or canal, but shall not extend to any hereditament situate within the boundary of any borough or of any town which is (for the time being) an urban sanitary district.

That particular sub-section, I think, rules out any urban area urbanised prior to that Act. Section 50 of the same Act provides:

Where, by virtue of an order respecting the constitution of an urban county district, whether by the constitution of a new or the extension of the boundaries of an old urban county district, any agricultural land in a rural district becomes included within the boundaries of the said urban district, such portion of the agricultural grant payable to the council of the county comprising the district as is proportionate to the rateable value in the standard financial year of that agricultural land shall be applied by the county council in manner directed by the said order for the relief of the said land from rates, whether by the payment thereof to the council of the urban district in exchange for an adequate exemption from rates or otherwise.

That section provides that agricultural land situate in a district or area not then urbanised but which became urbanised subsequent to the passing of the Act of 1898, shall continue to get the relief of the agricultural grant. I put down this amendment for the purpose of bringing agricultural land within areas which were urbanised prior to the passing of the 1898 Act within the reliefs provided under the agricultural grants. What are agricultural lands? I do not know that we have any clear definition of them, but I notice that in an amendment in the names of Deputies Seán Guilidhe and Frank Aiken they have defined to some extent the term agricultural land as "lands occupied and used as an ordinary farm in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry." I think that is a very good definition of agricultural land. The owners or occupiers of lands within these urban areas that are exempted from this relief feel that they have a grievance, and I think they have. At the moment the world-wide depression has affected these urban areas just as much, and perhaps more in many cases, than it has affected any other area in the Saorstát. Many of these urban areas are very heavily rated, and I think it must be conceded that it is impossible to expect or that it is not fair to expect the occupiers of these lands, who use them for agricultural purposes, to compete with their neighbours in adjoining urban areas whose lands receive the benefit of the agricultural grant.

The transport system that we have experienced within recent years left a great many of these urban areas without business. Some Deputies, I think, have the idea in their minds that everyone living within an urban area is wealthy and hence that there is no need of relief for them. I do not think that there is any farmer whose lands will get relief under the agricultural grant or under this Bill who will object to portion of this money being applied to agricultural lands within urban districts. We must regard land in the urban districts as being part and parcel of the agricultural industry. They are worked in the interests of the industry and they must carry overhead charges just the same as in the rural areas. Nowadays, when competition in the markets is so keen, it is not fair or equitable that we should ask occupiers of land in urban areas, urbanised prior to 1898, to go into competition with their neighbours who have the advantage of this relief. I do not consider that we would be doing any injustice to farmers in the rural areas if this amendment were accepted. I feel confident that the House and the Minister will accept my amendment. It does not propose to do an injustice to any other section of the community. It will confer on the owners of land in the areas referred to very great benefit.

I am opposing the amendment. What the amendment proposes is that the agricultural grant should be applied to land in these urban areas. These lands were excluded from the benefit of the agricultural grant under the Act of 1898, and again they were expressly excluded in 1925 when we increased the agricultural grant. The amendment is adopting for the first time an entirely new principle with regard to land in urban areas. The Towns Improvement Act of 1854 provided that lands in towns would be rated to one-fourth of the ordinary town rate. It was considered that it ought not be rated to the same value as other hereditaments. It was provided that the rates falling upon property in an urban area should be adjusted intra the urban area, and not as part of the general scheme for assessing agricultural land throughout the country generally. At the time the agricultural grant was given in 1898 certain changes took place in the incidence of rates. At that time the poor rate was raised on the district electoral division. The poor rate was rather heavier in the towns than in the country areas comprised in the district electoral division. The area of charge was changed to the rural district council area. In that way at the time of the passing of the 1898 Act, towns got a certain amount of relief of rates on agricultural land situate in those towns. In addition to the fact that the land was only rated at one-fourth of the town rate it got a further benefit in respect of the incidence of the poor rate by the extension of the area of charge. When the De-rating Commission was set up no evidence was produced before it to show that, as regards this question, there was any serious problem. No evidence was put forward in respect to agricultural land in towns, and no claim in that respect was made when the 1898 Act was going through.

Owing to the development that has taken place in the matter of housing schemes these lands have a much greater value now than they had at the time the 1898 Act was passed. Their value has increased considerably. When the Greater Dublin Bill was going through a principle similar to that now in operation in the case of these towns was adopted with regard to agricultural land and other hereditaments in the county borough. That is to say, the land is rated to half the valuation of the full municipal rate. I submit there is no case for this amendment. It is entirely contrary to the spirit and letter of this Bill, which has been introduced for the purpose of giving assistance to the agricultural industry, as such, generally.

I think the Minister knows very little about the subject when he says that what the amendment proposes is not fair. He has stated that land in urban areas which may be used for building purposes has gone up in value, and that it is only paying one-fourth of the ordinary town rate. I have a map of Drogheda before me. It shows that there are fifty farmers with a valuation of about £2,000 within the area controlled by the Drogheda Corporation. The Minister can see from the map that about one-fourth of the entire land within the borough boundary is occupied by houses. It has taken five hundred or six hundred years, since the Sack of Drogheda, to put up that number of houses, and at that rate of progress it will take another five hundred or one thousand years to cover the remaining three quarters of the area with houses. In the meantime the people who own that land are working it as agricultural land. Years ago a very high valuation was put on land situated within two miles of the centre of the town. That was because of its proximity value, but that proximity value, due to the introduction of motor transport, has changed altogether within the last five or six years. Farmers now, instead of deriving any benefit from having their land near a town, suffer a good deal owing to the cost imposed on them by the upkeep of their fences. The proximity value is not of any use to them at all. In the case of a man who has portion of his land inside the borough boundary and portion outside, notwithstanding that the portion inside is subject to a certain reduction in rates, the fact is, that the rates on the land inside the urban boundary are twice as much as the rates on the lands outside.

It is not fair of the Minister to try and put the matter off by saying that no representations were made on behalf of these people at the time the 1898 Act was going through, or before the De-rating Commission. If there is a fair case to be made for them now, then it should be considered. If a case was not made at the time referred to by the Minister on behalf of these farmers, it can be said that they were then not properly organised, and perhaps they let the matter go by the board. In my opinion, a man living within a town area, who used his land as agricultural land, and not as a residential holding, uses it for the purpose of making a living out of it for himself and his family, should get the same reduction in his rates under this Bill as the farmer who happens to live a few yards outside an urban boundary. Up to now the farmers within the urban boundary have got no benefit out of the agricultural grant. That is all the more reason, I think, why they should get some benefit out of the present grant.

If the Minister goes into the matter he will see, I think, that what the amendment proposes would not cost a lot. There will be no harm, but very much good done by applying the present grant to farmers who come within the definition laid down in the amendments of Deputy Hennessy, Deputy Goulding and myself. If the land becomes building land, then I am sure that none of us would feel that it should get a reduction in agricultural rates, but as long as the land is used for agricultural purposes, and is farmed in accordance with proper methods of husbandry, it should be entitled to the same benefit as land outside an urban boundary. On other Bills we stood for giving powers to urban councils to acquire land at a fair valuation. In the case of farmers inside a borough boundary, we stand for giving them a fair reduction in their rates, just as it is proposed to be given to farmers who are outside the borough boundary. Some time ago a farmer who has land inside and outside a borough boundary showed me his rate dockets. The rates on the land inside the urban boundary were double the rates on the land outside the boundary. I think there is a very good case for giving these farmers the relief that is asked for them. The fact that they have got no relief up to now makes it all the more incumbent on the Dáil to give them fair play, and whatever relief farmers outside urban boundaries are going to get.

I wish to support Deputy Hennessy's amendment. I think if the Minister had all the facts and figures before him he would accept it. I do not suppose anyone can now say what reason there was in the minds of those who passed the original Act in excluding the owners of such land. I think it is fairly accurate to assume that land in urban districts, prior to the passing of the agricultural grant, was excluded simply because few people imagined that there was any agricultural land within these areas. In a few urban districts there are men who derive their principal means of living from farming. I brought the case of a small urban district in my constituency before the Department. I refer to Belturbet, which is in the unfortunate position of being an urban district with a small valuation, where I think 1d. in the £ on the valuation only produces £15. In that area there is a valuation of over £650 on purely agricultural land from which the farmers derive their sole livelihood. It is not accommodation land owned by shopkeepers or professional men. I think if the Minister could narrow down Deputy Hennessy's amendment, which is a little too broad, he should do so in order to ensure that those who derive their sole living from farming would benefit. If some qualification of that kind were put into the Bill I think the Minister would find that by accepting the amendment he would be doing no injustice to farmers generally. He would be removing a considerable injustice, which was perpetrated by previous Acts, on farmers living within urban districts, who enjoy none of the facilities they provide. As an example, many of these farmers get no benefit from urban water or sewerage schemes, although they have to pay their share of the cost. This amending Bill is not a further addition to the agricultural grant but was brought in as a result of the agitation to reduce the overhead charges on farmers throughout the Saorstát. I do not see why farmers who happen to be within urban districts, and who suffer disabilities by not getting all the benefits they are entitled to, should be excluded, particularly as their inclusion will not reduce by the smallest decimal point the benefit given to the rest of the farming community. I think the Minister might give way in this case and get a form of words which would ensure that people who own land within urban districts, and who have no other means of livelihood—who are not shopkeepers or professional men—would get the benefit.

The Minister said that this amendment introduces a new principle. What if it does? It means fair play for a small section of the community who have not agitated at all. They did not send any representatives before the De-rating Commission but at the same time they are people with a real grievance. They are subject to very heavy charges for which they derive no benefit. I have in mind a town in which a very expensive sewerage scheme will be carried out. That will mean an increase in the rates in the urban district, and the farmers there will be heavily mulcted as a result of the sanitary facilities that are to be provided for their neighbours. They will not benefit, but neighbours who happen to be outside the boundary will benefit. I think it is not fair that farmers in urban areas should not get some relief. I do not know why Section 48 of the Local Government Act excluded them. No one dreamt that purely agricultural holdings would be excluded from the benefit of the agricultural grant. Every one knows that one of the arguments put up against the inclusion of these farmers is that they derive certain advantages from the facilities provided by the urban districts. In the majority of cases they do not benefit either by water or sewerage facilities. They have to pay very heavily for the benefits that are enjoyed by their neighbours, and it would be in their interests if the Minister could see his way to accept the amendment.

I am sure the Minister will see a good deal of reason in this amendment. Speaking for the town of Drogheda, an area that I know well, I take it that when the Act of 1918 was passed things were quite different from what they are now. Proximity then had some value and an idea existed that many of the farms, if not built upon, would be turned into cottage gardens. That is out of the question now. About 50 farmers in Drogheda have no facilities whatever. Some may claim that they have water supplies, but that is only in a few cases. In the majority of cases the water is a long distance away while they have extra expense in maintaining fences. An important point also is that many of the farmers go in for stall feeding cattle, and instead of shipping them from Drogheda, owing to the operation of through freights they take them across the country and load them at Duleek in order to save a few shillings in that way. So that in that part of their business no claim can be made. It is quite true that they did not take any steps to put evidence before the De-rating Commission. These people are very small in numbers and as they were purely agricultural they did not think there was any necessity as farmers in general were putting up the case. They always considered themselves to be purely agricultural and consequently they thought there was no necessity for them to put up evidence.

I look on their position as being one of sheer hardship. Some of them have farms a portion of which is inside the boundary and another portion outside. The portion inside the boundary has to pay double the rates of the portion outside. Farmers some distance away from them are able to market their crops in the town of Drogheda at much less cost of production than they are. Proximity means nothing even in the supply of milk at present. At the time the Act was passed it did mean something, but to-day no one can argue that it is any advantage whatever. I am sure that the Minister will see reason in adopting these new principles. We have to adopt them every day and we will have to continue to adopt them. I am confident he will see reason in this and accept the amendment.

The Minister made the point that the owners of these lands in urban areas made no case before the De-rating Commission. I want to say that when the Commission was set up the urban councils discussed their position with regard to it. I discussed it with many members of urban councils throughout the area and it was decided that we would not move in the matter, that we would not do anything that might place difficulties in the way of the Commission on the farmers getting the full benefit of de-rating or of any de-rating proposals made by the Government. We might have come in at the time as urban councils and put up a very good case against de-rating because of the very high rates and the very high valuations in these urban areas, but we decided not to do so. As Deputy O'Hanlon pointed out very properly, it was not intended that any benefits which might accrue from my amendment, if accepted, should go to wealthy shopkeepers if there are any such people, living within urban areas who own land and who do not use it for purely agricultural purposes.

The point is made that the agricultural grant was not made to apply to urban districts in 1898 because people did not dream that there was any agricultural land in these areas. So far from that being the fact, under the Towns Improvement Act there was an explicit provision by which land was rated to one-fourth of the town rate. It is a recognition that people did dream that there was agricultural land inside urban areas and that there was to be, as far as a town is concerned, some kind of differentiation between land and other hereditaments. Deputy Aiken's amendment and the last remark of Deputy Hennessy, Deputy O'Hanlon's remarks, and Deputy Goulding's remarks, both now and when dealing with this on Second Reading, show how half thought-out the whole problem is. We are told that relief is not wanted for land in urban districts held as accommodation land by shopkeepers or owned by rich people, or that is not used as a farm proper. Deputy Aiken would put on the Minister for Local Government the task of declaring by order what lands in an urban district or county borough area were ordinary farms, and in addition to that what lands, while being an ordinary farm, were not cultivated by proper methods of husbandry. I must say that an inquiry on these particular lines with regard to urban areas and county borough areas is certainly not going to expedite the granting to the farming community of the rating relief proposed in this measure.

Would it not be possible for the Minister to give a discretion or permission to county councils to let each urban area make its own case?

That is, to start in another fortnight's time a discussion between every other urban district council and the county council as to how much money out of this £750,000 was to go to Drogheda and Cobh and other places like these, and then, when all these different sums have been added up, to find out how much was left for the farming community of the country who put their case before the De-rating Commission and in respect of whom this is the contribution by means of giving them rating relief.

Might I say that the De-rating Commission turned their case down?

Yes, they turned the case down, but when we do come to the assistance of these people who have made such a striking case before the De-rating Commission at a considerable amount of trouble and expense, I think we can afford to overlook for the moment the case of those who, though suffering from this terrible injustice from 1898, have never said a word about it.

They have.

Deputies say that it is never too late to introduce a new principle even in this particular way. The principle that existed from the initiation of the agricultural grant is that in so far as there were urban districts prior to the initiation of the grant that had land inside them, and in so far as there was to be differentiation of rating as between lands and other hereditaments inside these areas it should be differentiation worked out inside the areas themselves and not related to the position with regard to agricultural land in the country generally. That is the principle that we are holding to in the distribution of this money, and these are the grounds upon which we oppose these amendments, apart altogether from the great difficulty of applying in any reasonable way, in any reasonable period of time, the changes that all this will bring about, if it were possible to work the second amendment at all.

I think the attitude of the Minister is most disappointing, as he will not even consider this question. Agricultural land is the general definition, in England at any rate, of the kind of land that has been relieved from rates over there. In all probability the courts here will ultimately decide that agricultural land would really cover all land that is being used in an agricultural way. The Minister has not attempted to show any reasons why there should be discrimination between agricultural land inside county boroughs as against agricultural land outside. It seems to me that it would be most unfair, particularly when the present state of affairs has gone on for such a long time, that we should give a further remission of rates without taking these people into consideration. A man who has land inside a county borough is paying very heavy rates— heavier than the man outside. The agricultural industry is far less fitted to bear heavy rates than any other industry, and we know of industries that, if they got an opportunity, would probably be able to make a very substantial case for a remission of rates.

Any grant that would be given to them would mean more employment, and the fact that agriculture generally is in a state of depression outside the areas, obviously it will be in a still more depressed condition when it has to pay heavy rates. We can well imagine the condition of the farmer inside the County Borough of the City of Dublin at the present time. The Minister has not really attempted to answer the question why there is discrimination. There was never any discrimination in Great Britain. Under the 1896 Act, all agricultural land was relieved of half its rates, and under the 1923 Act it was relieved of three-fourths of its rates. It did not matter where the land was situate.

The points regarding the De-rating Commission made by the Minister to the effect that those people had not made their claim up to the present is not a worthy one, because they have not really had an opportunity of going into this question; but as the de-rating question has been pretty fully ventilated and as a definite step has been taken in that direction by the Government, I think the Minister should at least admit that the case of these people is worthy of consideration. It might create some difficulties with his Department and might take some time to work out. Certain adjustments may have to be effected, but I think the Minister should assure the House he will consider the question, and if he could do anything perhaps he might move in the matter.

The Minister gave us one reason why the injustice under which these farmers suffer should not be remedied, and that is, that they have not agitated. I do not know whether that is a signal to all those who want to get their injustices remedied that they should create as much noise and trouble as possible——

It is not a question of creating noise and trouble, but of stating the problem, and examining it in the way in which the problem of the farmers generally was stated and examined before the De-rating Commission. The same applies to the general problems of urban areas.

The urban areas are concerned mostly with townspeople, and the rural areas with the farmers. The farmers concerned in this amendment are in a rather peculiar position. They are naturally disorganised. There may be five or six in one town, and not more than fifty in any town or borough. It is very hard for them to come together and organise. The Minister found fault with the reference to better methods of husbandry. I am quite certain Deputy Goulding and Deputy Aiken will accept any form of words that the Minister would like to put the amendment in if he accepts the principle.

Oh yes, of course.

They will accept any form. These men are farmers, living on farms and by farming, and although they happen to be inside these particular areas they should get relief. As has been pointed out, they do not get any of the services supplied by the town. Their proximity to the towns is not now of much advantage to them. Then we are told their land has a potential value as building land. It may possibly in cases of sale have a potential value for building in ten years or a hundred years, or a hundred and fifty years' time, but the position is not much use to the farmer in such areas who is trying to live on his farm this year, next year, or this time ten years. His rates may be lower, we are told, in comparison with other citizens in that area, but would the Minister deny that his rates are higher in the total than are the rates of the farmer who lives one hundred yards or maybe fifty yards outside the town? In these circumstances, I think the Minister might take into consideration the small number of farmers affected, and to whom relief should be granted, and who are badly in need of it.

The Minister complained that these farmers did not organise and put forward their problem before the De-rating Commission, but their problem is exactly the same as that of the farmers who did put their case before the De-rating Commission. As a matter of fact, in many cases the farmer inside and outside the town is one and the same man. They have land inside the boundary and land outside it. The whole problem of agriculture was discussed before the De-rating Commission and representations were made that owing to the present depressed state of agriculture it should be relieved. These men covered by the amendment are agriculturists. They are making a living out of the land. They are not getting any great benefit from their close proximity to the town any more than their neighbours a few miles out, and they are suffering from certain disabilities because they are inside the town boundary and also because they are close to the town. For one thing, it is hard to keep up their fences, and another is that their rates are much heavier. The Minister can do this if he wishes. No Deputy is going to stick by any form of words that he himself puts forward and if the Minister wishes to relieve these men who own land inside town boundaries, and if he admits the fairness of their case, he can have an amendment drafted to cover their case completely. I want to put this to the Minister. Although he will not bring the owners of land inside the town boundary within the scope of the Bill, the farmers within the town boundaries are made to pay to the Land Annuities (Guarantee) Fund when the annuities are not paid. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The ordinary burdens of farmers outside are extended to farmers inside the town boundary and for the same reason any benefit given to farmers outside should be extended to the men inside the town boundary.

I think the Minister should agree to this amendment. There is not much in it, and I do not think it is worth while discussing the matter very long. Further, the quantity of land is so small within the urban areas that I do not think if the relief is granted it would make any serious inroad into the capital sum of £750,000. I believe there should be no difficulty in making this concession. A man in an urban district is entitled to this relief. I do not agree with Deputy Hennessy when he says that wealthy shopkeepers who own this land would be entitled to no relief. Where are the wealthy shopkeepers at the moment?

I said if there were such.

Are there such? Most of the shopkeepers in the town are engaged in wine and spirit business and they are taxed nearly out of existence, and I think they are entitled to any relief that may come, if they happen to have a few acres of land within an urban area, out of this £750,000 grant. I do not think the Minister has made a strong case against this amendment.

The Minister stated it introduced a new principle. The fact of introducing a grant for £750,000 is a new principle; in fact whenever a new Bill is introduced into this House there is a new principle. There would be no necessity for the Dáil, or for any other Parliament, to sit if new principles were not to be enunciated. I do not think, therefore, that this is any great argument from the Minister. Further, the Minister states that the value of land is greater in urban than in rural areas. But we must bear in mind that the cost of land is greater in urban than in rural areas. Wages are higher, rates are higher and the working expenses of the people living in urban areas are much greater than the expenses of those living in rural areas. I think the Minister should accept this amendment, seeing the way in which it has been debated by the Deputies from the different Parties who have spoken on this amendment and who have seen the justice of it. I think the Minister should work out the details as to the allocation of the money. He may rest assured that it will be very small, as my experience is that the amount of agricultural land cultivated within the urban bounds within the country is very small indeed. It is hardly worth while.

Deputy Coburn minimised this thing. He said it is a very small thing, but arising out of this small thing we are to involve ourselves in the distribution of money to ratepayers who are not properly scheduled and to a small number of people in respect of whom there are very considerable differences of opinion even here as to the extent to which any set of them should be relieved. Deputy Coburn wants them all relieved and other Deputies only want some of them relieved.

They all want it.

The Deputy says this is in respect of a small number of people and a small amount of money. Deputies on the opposite side have asked that this should be considered, and it has been considered. It has been considered by us. It is after consideration of the desirability or otherwise of doing what is proposed here that we decided that it should not be done.

If, in respect of land or any other type of hereditament in an urban district there are special problems, whether it be the incidence of the rates or whether a particular class of ratepayers do or do not get the benefit of the services that are provided in the town, we will have to look to all our urban problems as such, and not confuse the whole picture by having our rural problems ramified into our towns and our urban problems ramified into the country. The argument that at this hour of the day farmers inside urban districts should be relieved in a way that we have not been prepared to relieve them before is one that we are not prepared to accept.

I am very glad the Minister has made these remarks. I think the Minister has come a long way to meet us. The discussion on this amendment to my mind has been very healthy. For the first time, I think, in the history of this House, we are endeavouring to grant some little relief to urban areas. We have on many occasions been discussing the question of relief to agriculture—a very important industry. We all concede that. But we must also consider that there are very important people living in the urban areas who are very seriously menaced in their business at the moment.

Some of them are farmers and very good farmers. We do not desire the application of these grants to any land that is not used for purely agricultural purposes. Since I put this amendment down I understand a deputation from areas affected is to approach the Minister, and the Minister, I have no doubt, will give the matter much more consideration. Probably when these deputations meet him, he will be able to hammer out some machinery whereby he can relieve the farmers within these urban areas in some other way than by eating into the £750,000 that we are granting under this Bill. I do not wish to confuse the issue and I do not desire to press the amendment because of that. I hope when this deputation meets the Minister that they will be able to evolve some machinery that will satisfy the owners of these lands.

I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister has not given the slightest indication that he is going to do anything for these farmers.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 63.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Finlay, Thomas A.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessv. Thomas.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, John.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment 2:—

After sub-section (2) to insert four new sub-sections as follows:—

"(3) The Minister for Local Government and Public Health may by order declare that any land within the boundaries of a county borough occupied and used as an ordinary farm in accordance with proper methods of husbandry shall be deemed to be within an adjoining county for the purposes of this Act and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall apply to such land as if the same were included in such county, and such order shall ascertain and declare the population and valuation of such land for the purposes of apportionment and payment under this Act.

(4) For the purpose of calculating the amount payable to the council of the said county under paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of this section there shall be added to the population of the said county the population of the said land ascertained under sub-section (3) hereof.

(5) For the purpose of calculating the amount payable to the council of the said county under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of this section there shall be added to the valuation of the agricultural land as defined in Section 48 of the Local Government Ireland Act, 1898, in the said county the valuation of the lands deemed to be included therein under such order.

(6) The increased sum payable to such county council by reason of the inclusion of the said land therein for the purposes of this Act shall be ascertained by the said order and shall be paid by the said county council to the council of the said county borough and shall be applied by the council of the said county borough in relief of the said lands from rates."

This matter has been dealt with, I think, sufficiently. I think it would be sufficient formally to move it.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 63.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Finlay, Thomas A.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hassett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEóin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, John.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 2, 3 and the Title agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 9th July.
Top
Share